Theos-Talk Archives (June 2002 Message tt00153)

Hi Bart and all,

The following are views. The readers should feel absolutely free to commenton them or ask questions:

Well Bart I have difficulties in agreeing with your below answer.

You bart wrote:
" A current definition of terrorism is military attacks specifically
> directed at non-military personnel during a time when there is no state
> of war. According to this definition, the attack on the World Trade
> Center was terrorism, while the attack on the Pentagon was an act of
> war. "

Allright Bart. But, that is just another definition. I stick to the one I have made.
A view, although I could be claimed wrong, is: To call something an 'act ofwar' like USA did, was just rethoric use, so to have an excuse to make - USA warfare - in OTHER countries (Afghanistan was the first country) acceptable to the public and other countries populations. (What evil will come next?) The bombing of Pentagon was and is to me still an act of terrorism. (A bad act it was, yes.)

Bart ask in the below email on the issue food-terrorism :  
"Can you give a specific example of this?"

My answer to Bart:
Picture a schoolyard. In one corner of the schoolyard we have a group of kids - our - theos-talk (the nerd-philosophers at school). 
In another corner we have, what I could call 'the fat boy' (no offence, I am just trying to make a point). 'The fat boy' and his friends in the cornerhave a lot of food with them - i.e. tons of food to put i right. 
Now in a third corner we have the poor children they have no food, but their parents have given them some coffeebags to take to school, so that they maybe could barter for 'lunch-food' with 'the fat boy' and his gang.
So they barter with 'the fat boy' while the nerds are busy making certian actions on the Internet.
'The fat boy' is also big and his friends are too. Even the schoolboard aresomewhat afraid of him and his gang. The poor people have to accept, that each time they deliver 10 coffeebags - they only get one small slice of bread, - and that with nothing on the top of it. (The poor children can't easily get coffebags in high numbers, because their parents don't have any.)
And sometimes 'the fat boy' and his gang gets sort of insane. Then he comeswith a lot of baseballbats (i.e. weapons) and interfer with the poor people in their own corner (and culture) - and some of the coffebags get torn apart and maybe they get 'dropped' in the trashcan.
Sometimes 'the fat boy' and his gang has waterpistols with them at school. But there is not only water in the guns, - they have dangerous pesticides in them. And they spray on the smallest of the poor kids with them - so their skins get molested.
And the schoolboard allows waterpistols to be used and pesticides to be used in waterpístols !

This should be an anology on the rich (fat) western countries, the poor coffeproducing countries, and Theosophical nerds. (I did cut it short, beacuseof the size of the email.)
And Bart, that is what I call food-terrorism.

Just shortly after the 'world trade bombs' feel - USA was suddenly busy paying their heavy debt to the United Nations programmes.
One wonders why ?

Bart wrote in the below email:
"I guess, according to you, we should allow chattel slavery, lack of
> human rights for women, butchering of those with other points of view,
> torture, chemical and biological weapons. After all, it's their culture,
> and who are we to interfere?"

My answer to Bart:
You can guess, that is allright Bart. But you seem to miss the point:

You deleted the following in my last email:
"The Jews can't live alone. The Palaestinians can't live alone. The USA can't live alone. The Germans can't live alone. The Afghans can't live alone. The India can't live alone. The Persia can't live alone. And each and everycountry has to respect the other not just by words, but in reality by their respectíve actions. And in the present information society, this is getting pretty clear.
Especially the USA, Germans and the Afghans will have to live with respect for each other.
***The same respect has to be created for the persons at Theos-talk."

So Bart - let us show some respect, right. Let us see USA and western countries show some repsect instead of being (religious and) cultural imperialistic bullies. But other countries should also show respect.


Bart wrote in the below email:
"Do you think those people are so stupid and easily led that they would
> abandon their culture and religions for products? Would you? Do you
> think that you're better than they are? "

My answer to Bart:
Again it is important that other countries show each other respect. USA andother western countries should show other countries respect, while exporting their so called goods.

First question: Yes ! Because they get tempted, or are ignorant of their own culture, or think that it is part of their culture to do certain western actions. Children in an information society are easily mislead, and that iswhat is going on. That is why the $ (i.e. greed) has so much power, (but sadly today so very little moral and respect).
Take the issue 'Coca Cola' for instance. It is not healthy and it should infact be thrown out of production, but it is allowed in several countries. Coca Cola advertises with the use of storytelling - and promotes the american lifestyles by this advertising. Other companies are doing the same. (That is cultural imperialism - and also religious imperialism. Hidden or not.)
American movies are promoting the American lifestyle. (Even Denmark - my country of birth - feels the heat from this). They are allowed in some muslimcountries today. Because of this (religious betrayl) - muslims from other countries slowly get pushed to accept this as an innocent issue. But it is certainly NOT an innocent issue.
The american lifestyle with Las Vegas, excessive Porn, kids with guns etc. - is not normal, and should not as it is now be promoted to other countries! And other issues exist.
Second question: I am fortunately not ignorant or at least that ignorant.
Third: No, certainly not. Why should I think so ? Some of us do really care.

Bart ask in the below: "What's your point?"
My answer to Bart: "Greed and cultural egoism is not good. This is my point!"


Bart wrote:
"The Security Council was formed by those countries who enabled the
> Middle East countries to be self-governing, rather than remain colonies."

My answer to Bart:
Yes, but that doesn't remove the fact, that the so called Security Council was and still is illformed.
As I said in the latest email:
Instead of that we have a so-called Security Council, which in its present clearly biased form, (without any permanent members from Middle Eastern countries), never will be able to create anything but trouble on matters concerning the Middle East.

And in spite of this the MAIN purpose of the United Nations is to create peace. What a mistake to continue with such a vehicle by the name of the 'Security Council'. A council, which certainly is anything but secure! (Well let us call it a view.)

You see I consider the Security Council to be something analogically similar to the Jews council the Sanhedrin, which was said to have sentenced JesusChrist to the death.

Try: 
Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism - 22 April 1998:
http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/IOR510012002?OpenDocument
Allow me a quote: "It should be noted from the start that as of November 2001, there is no international definition agreed upon within the United Nation of the term ''terrorism'', and there is no one international comprehensive treaty on ''terrorism''.(22) There are, instead, a number of treaties that deal with various crimes that are defined as ''terrorist'' crimes."
And antoher quote: "The Convention defines ''terrorism'' as

Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to theenvironment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize national resources.(46)

Amnesty International is very concerned that this broad definition can be subject to wide interpretation and abuse, and in fact does not satisfy the requirements of legality in international human rights and humanitarian law.

UN-Genral Assembly Resolution - 1996: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/51/a51r210.htm
UN - Press Release from President of the Security Council - 21. September 2001: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sc7152.doc.htm
UN - Press Release from UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali - May 1996:
Allow me a quote: "As a global threat, only global action can eradicate theevil of terrorism. One State alone cannot be successful, as terrorists themselves know no frontiers. The cooperative action of all is required to eradicate this threat to all nations. "
http://www0.un.org/News/Press/docs/1996/19960529.sgsm5992.html

So becuase of religoius reasons The Arabs define 'terrorism' somwhat different than USA or others.

from
Sufilight with peace and love...and respect to others...







----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bart Lidofsky" <bartl@sprynet.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Mahatmas and Kings...and glamour...


> Morten Sufilight wrote:
> > 1.
> > The western view is often, that terrorism is - violent aggression by the use 
> > of certain weapons (more or less dangerous), which almost immediately kills 
> > the human targets. It is often a minor group of so-called political/religious 
> > people, who are attacking a certain country, or a government, or another 
> > society-important target. This could be termed as violent terrorism.
> > (Others call it a defence against other kinds of terrorism made by the 
> > victim).
> 
> A current definition of terrorism is military attacks specifically
> directed at non-military personnel during a time when there is no state
> of war. According to this definition, the attack on the World Trade
> Center was terrorism, while the attack on the Pentagon was an act of
> war. 
> 
> 
> > 2.
> > 
> > The poor countries often state the view, that terrorism also is definedto 
> > the issue, when the rich (western or western LIFESTYLE) countries continually 
> > economically and politically oppress the poor countries. It is also called 
> > food-terrorism.
> 
> Can you give a specific example of this?
> 
> > 3.
> > The Middle Eastern countries (and others) has the view, the especially rich 
> > countries (mostly western countries USA, EU etc.) act as what is called 
> > Cultural Imperialists, which by trade and dollars etc. oppress other 
> > countries cultures and EVEN religions. 
> 
> I guess, according to you, we should allow chattel slavery, lack of
> human rights for women, butchering of those with other points of view,
> torture, chemical and biological weapons. After all, it's their culture,
> and who are we to interfere?
> 
> > The rich or western countries sort of flood for instance Middle Eastern 
> > countries with products, which promote a lifestyle, which aggressively and 
> > effectively undermines most Middle Eastern religions and lifestyles. 
> 
> Do you think those people are so stupid and easily led that they would
> abandon their culture and religions for products? Would you? Do you
> think that you're better than they are? 
> 
> > The situation is, that the dollar - $ - is the economically leading currency. 
> > And because of that, and because of greed, we have the present situation in 
> > the Middle East and elsewhere.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> > Instead of that we have a so-called Security Council, which in its present 
> > clearly biased form, (without any permanent members from Middle Eastern 
> > countries), never will be able to create anything but trouble on matters 
> > concerning the Middle East.
> 
> The Security Council was formed by those countries who enabled the
> Middle East countries to be self-governing, rather than remain colonies.
> 
> Bart Lidofsky
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>